Obama battle cry: “Remember the climate!”

By |2016-02-22T17:14:21+00:00February 22nd, 2016|CFACT Insights|105 Comments

Military triumphs and catastrophes have often hinged on how well (or luckily) armies and navies employed, avoided or benefited from weather and other natural events.

Severe storms helped the British navy defeat Spain’s Armada in 1588. George Washington knew horrid weather meant the Hessians would not expect an attack across the Delaware River on Christmas 1776.

Napoleon captured Moscow before leading his Grande Armée’s exhausted, starving, freezing remnants back to France through a bitter 1812 Russian winter. Hitler’s army never even reached Moscow; it was decimated by disease, starvation, bullets and frigid cold at Stalingrad 140 years later.

Eisenhower’s Normandy invasion plans anticipated a full moon that would illuminate bomber targets and bring low tides to expose German mines and obstacles along the beaches. Instead, overcast skies limited Allied air support – but persuaded the Nazi high command that no invasion would occur for several days. So senior officers stayed in Germany, leaving their army unprepared for D-Day, June 6, 1944.

Throughout history, commanders discovered that trying to predict the weather – or their enemies’ resolve – was fraught with peril. Even today, accurate weather forecasting is a highly uncertain science, even a few days in advance, especially for hurricanes or winter blizzards in Mid-Atlantic states where winds, storm tracks, temperatures and moisture are affected by the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico and Arctic.

But now President Obama wants to compound his social experimentation with the military, by ordering the Pentagon brass to focus not on imminent weather events surrounding battle plans – not on threats from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, ISIL, Hamas and other real hot spots – but on climate change years or decades in the future. He wants to replace Remember the Alamo with Remember the Climate!

President Obama has issued an executive order directing the US Navy energy securityDepartment of Defense (and all other federal government agencies) to make preparing for global warming impacts a top priority, and treat climate change as our most serious national security threat. He even warned 2015 Coast Guard Academy graduates that “denying” climate change is a “dereliction of duty.” You can’t make this stuff up.

The EO directs the Pentagon to order all military commanders, down to battle planning levels, to include climate change analyses in combat planning, training exercises, intelligence gathering, weapons testing and procurement, fuel types and use, and practically every other aspect of military operations. This could include restrictions on the type and duration of training flights, amphibious landings and tank maneuvers.

It is sheer lunacy. It means bureaucrats and new layers of armed forces bureaucracies will waste time and money, and ignore real weapons and training issues. It means soldiers and sailors must now focus less on real natural and humanitarian disasters, and more on “climate refugee crises” that exist only in computer models, ivory tower studies and White House press releases. It could affect combat readiness and morale, make our warriors less prepared for warfare, and put them at greater risk of injury and death.

Other Obama orders forced the Air Force to spend $59 a gallon for “renewable” jet fuel and $67 per gallon for camelina-based F-22 Raptor fuel – and the Navy to spend $27 per gallon for biofuels from algae, waste grease and animal fat, and $424 a gallon for 20,000 gallons of “sustainable” diesel fuel. All that when conventional gasoline, diesel and jet fuel sell for $2.00-$3.50 per gallon (thanks to fracking)!

Like the other social experiments, this is being imposed by political operatives with little or no military service, few kids in the military, and minimal concern about how these policies, multiple deployments and stretched-to-the-breaking-point budgets might affect military readiness, morale, safety and families.

Even more absurd, the orders are based on pseudo-science and indefensible assumptions that carbon dioxide now drives climate change, and we have the knowledge and ability to predict climate shifts, extreme weather and related disasters years or decades in advance. Basing defense policies on these notions is ridiculous and dangerous. It’s like Eisenhower using tarot cards to predict Normandy weather.

The IPCC, EPA and White House continue to rely on still “murky” science, climatologist John Christy recently told the Senate Space and Science Subcommittee, “with large uncertainties on many crucial components, such as cloud distributions and surface heat exchanges.” This and other deficiencies cause predictions to be notoriously disconnected from Real World temperatures and weather events.

Contrary to those predictions, instead of rising a degree or more, average global temperatures have flat-lined for 19 years. Instead of more hurricanes, not a single category 3-5 hurricane has struck the U.S. mainland since November 2005 (a record ten-plus years). “Moisture conditions have not shown a tendency to have decreased (more drought) or increased (more large-scale wetness),” Dr. Christy noted.

Climate models still focus on manmade carbon dioxide and ignore most of the powerful, interconnected natural forces that have always driven climate and weather. In fact, “the theory of how climate changes, and the associated impact of extra greenhouse gases, is not understood well enough [for models] to even reproduce the past climate,” Dr. Christy explained to the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. There is no way they can forecast future climates, and they have failed to do so.

Climate models pay minimal attention to significant effects of land use changes and major high-impact fluctuations like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Niño and La Niña) and North Atlantic Oscillation, University of Delaware climatology professor David Legates observes.

Adds Weatherbell forecaster Joe D’Aleo: they also disregard variations in the sun’s energy output; the important effects of the sun’s ultraviolet output, geomagnetic activity and cloud-enhancing cosmic rays; and the cyclical interplay of cold and warm water pools in our oceans, which significantly influence the severity of winters in Eurasia and North America (as just one example). All these factors affect weather and climate. They assume any warming is dangerous, rather than beneficial for people and agriculture.

Additional reasons for grossly deficient climate models are their “overly simplified and inadequate numerical techniques,” and the fact that decadal and century-scale circulation changes in the deep oceans “are very difficult to measure and are not yet well enough understood to be realistically included in the climate models,” says Colorado State University weather and hurricane analyst Bill Gray.

Reliable predictive capabilities require that we end our obsession with carbon dioxide as the primary driver of climate change – and devote far more attention to studying all the powerful forces that have always driven climate change, the roles they play, and the complex interactions among them.

And yet, Christy noted ruefully, “demonstrably deficient models are being used to make policy.” That has been disastrous for domestic sectors, like coal and manufacturing. It could be lethal for military forces.

One can easily imagine how Gilbert and Sullivan would treat this HMS Pinafore Admiralinsanity in an updated HMS Pinafore:

Now landsmen all, whoever you may be,

If you want to be admirals at the DOD,

If your soul isn’t fettered to the White House fools,

Be careful to be guided by this golden rule:

Heed the climate models and never go to sea,

And you all may be rulers of Obama’s Navee!

The revised D’Oyly Carte lyrics notwithstanding, Mr. Obama continues to use climate change to justify his drive to fundamentally transform our economy, society, military, and energy, legal and constitutional systems. Equally ominous, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders share his obsession and objectives.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Pentagon brass and line officers must battle these climate directives as forcefully as they would any of the real dangers that face our nation and world. So must we all.


  1. Sam Pyeatte February 23, 2016 at 11:16 AM

    This madness will be the first thing to be ripped out of the stupid Federal directives on Defense when a new President takes office. It will be like getting a $100 billion infusion for military readiness. That this junk was mandated shows the complete degeneracy and evil intent of the far-left cancer eating away at our society.

  2. Landshark February 23, 2016 at 11:29 AM

    When Socialism has already shown its idiocy to be totally unworkable without tyranny driving it, and then only working for the elite, we are bombarded with the unthinkable insanity that puny mankind can cause the climate to change and the military, rather than protect freedom from real enemies, must now turn their mission to the unnecessary and impossible. Only a Democrap/Communist.Progressive/Libtard or, a Muslim, could think of such stupidity.

    • Obie Miller February 23, 2016 at 5:55 PM

      Correctly stated Landshark!

  3. 2packs4sure . February 23, 2016 at 12:19 PM

    ATAAACCKK !!!!!!!!

  4. KayO February 23, 2016 at 1:03 PM

    Global warming is the brainchild of Karl Marx. The hoax is designed to scare and control society. Watch the films Agenda Grinding America Down and Agenda Masters of Deceit. There are actually environmentalists with Green Cross (Gorbachev’s brainchild) who built a replica of The Ark of The Covenant, and they pray to it when they take it gifts. No joke. Watch the films.

    • Dano2 February 23, 2016 at 4:08 PM

      Global warming is the brainchild of Karl Marx


      It goes back farther than that!!!!!!!!!!!1111

      To scientific ‘spearmints in the 1820s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Who knew them physicists back then could perpetrate a hox into the 2010s?!?!?!?!?!



      • KayO February 23, 2016 at 6:45 PM

        What’s wrong with you?

        • Dano2 February 23, 2016 at 6:55 PM

          What’s wrong with you that you don’t know how far back the scam of physics and the scammy-scam of GHGs goes?



  5. The Grump February 23, 2016 at 1:32 PM

    What a POS

    • prm2012 February 24, 2016 at 10:39 AM

      Yes Obama the Bloward sure is.

      • The Grump February 24, 2016 at 11:44 AM

        You do know that is who I was refering to right?

      • prm2012 February 24, 2016 at 12:57 PM

        Yes I got that, you are correct, also lying as well.

  6. Arizona Don February 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM

    Every time and I mean every time I think obama can do nothing stupider he surprises me and does. Topping this one however, is going to be difficult at best. Having served in the US Army I can just imagine what the GI’s are saying. What I cannot imagine is serving under such a stupid commander in chief. He would not make a pimple on an E-1’s ars.

    obama has taken respect for the office to a brand new level but it is down not up.

  7. PsykoKlown February 23, 2016 at 2:10 PM

    O’bahbah is taking the whole “war on climate change” thing waaay too literally.
    Are they to exterminate climate change with extreme prejudice? Is he going to impose a limit on rounds fired while eradicating climate change? The military getting EVs? Wars going to be called on account of carbon footprint and give everyone a participation award?

  8. FreemenRtrue February 23, 2016 at 2:16 PM

    well, we elected him – twice! Did you stay home? Lysenkoism is ALIVE! It is a blob that feeds on Socialist totalitarianism.

  9. HisPurpose February 23, 2016 at 2:25 PM

    The picture used in this news piece, the umbrella held over his head is ridiculous. Stay inside and speak, if it is bad weather, common sense. His ideas, that are most likely coming from other people around him, will backfire in their faces, just like everything else. Fear not, the Lord is watching over us.

  10. CTConservatives47 February 23, 2016 at 2:32 PM

    Excellent article. Obama is a total scientific illiterate, as are most Democrat members of Congress, Bernie “Socialist” Sanders among them. The idea that carbon dioxide is the chief, or even a significant, driver of climate is ludicrous on its face. Climate has always been driven by solar output and the earh’s positional relationship to it playing out over geologic time scales, that plus the Decadal Oscillations and the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover. CO2 pales by comparison. Sadly, the global warming substitute religion, endlessly promoted on college campuses, is what drives the political allegiance of many naive young people. The communists, operating through the Green Movement, realized this potential years ago. All you need is one hook to pull them into the socialist orbit of the modern Democrat Party. That’s why the work you do is so important. To think this all, at most, a third of degree Celsius warmingrom 1978-1998, that has been in a hiatus for 18 years. It’s the greatest scientific fraud in history, and already the most costly–billions in federal; and state tax dollars down the toilet.

    • Dano2 February 23, 2016 at 4:07 PM

      The idea that carbon dioxide is the chief, or even a significant, driver of climate is ludicrous on its face


      D https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/440df33b4d323ef3f26bfb9463f88b585a0bd067ec305ceb68bafa37703ebacd.jpg

    • Will Haas February 23, 2016 at 7:54 PM

      The current warming up from the Little Ice Age is very similar to the warm up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period that occurred about 1300 years ago. Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and Mankind does not have the power to change it. Despite all the claims, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is evidence that warmer temperatures cause more CO2 to enter the atmosphere but there is no evidence that this additional CO2 causes any more warming. If additional greenhouse gases caused additional warming then the primary culprit would have to be H2O which depends upon the warming of just the surfaces of bodies of water and not their volume but such is not part of the AGW conjecture. In other words CO2 increases in the atmosphere as huge volumes of water increase in temperature but more H2O enters the atmosphere as just the surface of bodies of water warm. We live in a water world where the majority of the Earth’s surface is some form of water.

      The AGW theory is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in its radiant thermal insulation properties causing restrictions in heat flow which in turn cause warming at the Earth’s surface and the lower atmosphere. In itself the effect is small because we are talking about small changes in the CO2 content of the atmosphere and CO2 comprises only about .04% of dry atmosphere if it were only dry but that is not the case. Actually H2O, which averages around 2%, is the primary greenhouse gas. The AGW conjecture is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which further increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere and by so doing so amplifies the effect of CO2 on climate. At first this sounds very plausible. This is where the AGW conjecture ends but that is not all what must happen if CO2 actually causes any warming at all.

      Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is also a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere transferring heat energy from the Earth;s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. More heat energy is moved by H2O via phase change then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. More H2O means that more heat energy gets moved which provides a negative feedback to any CO2 based warming that might occur. Then there is the issue of clouds. More H2O means more clouds. Clouds not only reflect incoming solar radiation but they radiate to space much more efficiently then the clear atmosphere they replace. Clouds provide another negative feedback. Then there is the issue of the upper atmosphere which cools rather than warms. The cooling reduces the amount of H2O up there which decreases any greenhouse gas effects that CO2 might have up there. In total, H2O provides negative feedback’s which must be the case because negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The wet lapse rate being smaller then the dry lapse rate is further evidence of H2O’s cooling effects.

      The entire so called, “greenhouse” effect that the AGW conjecture is based upon is at best very questionable. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the heat trapping effects of greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass reduces cooling by convection. This is a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth..The surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer than it would be without an atmosphere because gravity limits cooling by convection. This convective greenhouse effect is observed on all planets in the solar system with thick atmospheres and it has nothing to do with the LWIR absorption properties of greenhouse gases. the convective greenhouse effect is calculated from first principals and it accounts for all 33 degrees C. There is no room for an additional radiant greenhouse effect. Our sister planet Venus with an atmosphere that is more than 90 times more massive then Earth’s and which is more than 96% CO2 shows no evidence of an additional radiant greenhouse effect. The high temperatures on the surface of Venus can all be explained by the planet’s proximity to the sun and its very dense atmosphere. The radiant greenhouse effect of the AGW conjecture has never been observed. If CO2 did affect climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused an increase in the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Considering how the natural lapse rate has changed as a function of an increase in CO2, the climate sensitivity of CO2 must equal 0.0.

      This is all a matter of science

      • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 6:56 AM

        Models have been generated that show that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun

        Those models are faulty then. The sun’s irradiance is decreasing and yet the earth’s temps and heat content is increasing.



        • Will Haas February 24, 2016 at 4:32 PM

          You have to include the thermal capacitance effect of the oceans.

          • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 4:35 PM

            Thermal capacitance itself is causing the rapid increase in heat content of the oceans?

            Glory be!



            • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 5:02 AM

              It is causing the apparent temperature at the Earth’s surface to average a tad warmer. It acts as a lowpass filter which results in a delay in apparent effects. Yes, glory be!

              • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 8:26 AM

                So heat in ohsin make more heat, like spontaneous combustion or sumpin’?



                • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 2:51 PM

                  NO! It is a low pass filter response that causes delay in the apparent output.

                  • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 2:54 PM

                    How much delay? What kind of filter? How much output?

                    That is: what is this awesome! NewPhysics you describe, and when do you publish? I’m taking a screen print so I can say I knew him when! *swoon*



                    • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 3:10 PM

                      How a capacitor operates and how a lowpass filter operates is very elementary physics.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 3:34 PM

                      …and ocean heat content is not, nor does ocean heat need a low-pass filter for detection or storage. Are you telling us you know little about this issue?



                    • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 4:52 PM

                      The oceans are a huge, non-linear, thermal capacitor and as such operates as a low pass filter in terms of global temperatures.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 4:56 PM

                      Sure, sure.



  11. ONTIME February 23, 2016 at 2:49 PM

    Does “remember the climate” come before or after, Don’t for get my golf clubs”….boy

  12. Ernst Ghermann February 23, 2016 at 3:44 PM

    How does the F-16 fit into this edict? Perhaps this will finally kill the F-16 boondoggle.

  13. George Matyas February 23, 2016 at 4:06 PM

    The climate is changing and will always be changing. Having been around for a lot of years, I would say the their ability to predict the daily temperature is about + or – 10 degrees. So how did they manage to claim that the earth warmed 2.3 degrees, when their daily variation is 20 degrees. You have to have the ability to predict in the thousandth place to get that type of accuracy. Temperature is a measure of heat (BTU), but the problem really is radiation, and until we can measure it and from what sources, there isn’t much that we can do about.

  14. Duane L Petersen February 23, 2016 at 4:20 PM

    Obamass is interested in only one thing and that is control on the lines of Hitler and Stalin. It makes no deference if his way is communist or fascist the destruction of the government of the US is his only goal. This was the goal of the UN since 1980 and they have been pushing it through the weak minded president since they got one they could control in 2009.l

  15. prm2012 February 23, 2016 at 6:43 PM

    This must be a JOKE, Climate Change is a BIG HOAX. Some are making a lot of money off this.
    The Liar-in-Chief has lost his mind, if he believes that Climate Change is a real threat
    to the world..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Dano2 February 23, 2016 at 7:00 PM

      Clearly there is still a market among the Faux “News” faithful for claiming that:

      o Thousands of scientists;

      o across a century and a half;

      o in a wide range of specialties;

      o in dozens of countries;

      o on six continents;

      o speaking scores of languages;

      o having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers;

      o are involved in a complex plot to ‘fake’ AGW…

      o but have been exposed by a few intrepid bloggers and fossil fuel billionaires.

      Has there ever been – ever – a less likely conspiracy theory ever than this one? In the history of the world?



      • wally12 February 24, 2016 at 1:05 AM

        @Dano2: Hey, Dano2, have you noticed that there haven’t been any responses to your trolling on this issue? It looks like every one has realized that you are a troll that you have absolutely no real evidence to back up any of your statements.

        • RobbertBobbert GDQ February 24, 2016 at 3:04 AM

          Not wanting to give Dano2 oxygen to rave on so I shall mention to you that it is not a conspiracy. It is wide out in the open and the scam is blatant and upfront.
          …Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement…This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution…

          In other words the Capitalist Model has gotta go and be replaced by…?… all in the Name of Global Warming. Or Climate Armageddon or whatever is the latest horror story going around.

          Wally12. Did anybody at a local, state or federal level, in any nation, actually vote for this transformation or is the will of the people no longer important in this New World of UN Climate and Figueres and King Obama.

          BTW. Figueres is retiring and I request help in finding out how much such a UN senior figure gets paid and what is the finishing up bonus and Superannuation or retirement collect.
          I reckon it will be a very, very cushy situation!

          • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 6:54 AM

            In other words the Capitalist Model has gotta go

            You were duped. Why?



          • prm2012 February 24, 2016 at 10:33 AM

            I agree, it started with Big Mouth Al Gore, as Global Warming.
            Al gore’s inconvenient truth 10 years to save the planet.

            His time has run out, the planet is still here and seems to be in good shape.

            Now King Obama says climate is more dangerous than Terrorsum, another “HOAX”. From the Liar-in-Chief.

            • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 6:47 PM

              I agree, it started with Big Mouth Al Gore, as Global Warming.

              Actually, them KINSPEERCY against American Patriots for Private Property started almost 200 years ago with scientific experiments on the atmosphere.



          • wally12 February 24, 2016 at 12:51 PM

            @RobertBobbert GDQ: I fully agree. Dano2 is simply a troll and I know he will never change his spots. I’ve disregarded his comments in the past and should not even bothered to respond to his baloney. It was a weak moment or I just missed his BS. Have a nice day.

          • prm2012 February 26, 2016 at 9:12 AM

            RobbertBobbert GDQ; You nailed it it is all about the NWO.
            Call it climate change, because Global warming wasn’t Cooperating
            with their theory. All lies and that is just a theory.

        • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 5:39 AM

          Thanks, Wally, if you are saying there is no evidence for the fact that climate science has behind it thousands of scientists across a century and a half, in a wide range of specialties in dozens of countries, on six continents speaking scores of languages having over ten thousand peer-reviewed papers…I’d respond that wait until you get to eighth or ninth grade. Then you’ll get some evidence.



          • wally12 February 24, 2016 at 12:47 PM

            @Dano2: That is what I like about you. Anyone who is a skeptic is called a 6th grader. You resort to name calling when you have nothing to add to a conversation. There are thousands of scientists who have stated that the models used by the climate scientists have not proven that CO2 is the driver of warming. Freeman Dyson, the respected and well known astrophysicist and has a resume longer that all of your climate scientists, has stated that the models used by the climate scientists are flawed. He states that the models use “Fudge Factors” in an attempt to account for the effect of clouds,water vapor and sun and solar influence on warming the earth. He has been involved with climate studies but quit their study based on the non science that he observed.

            • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 12:54 PM

              There are thousands of scientists who have stated that the models used by the climate scientists have not proven that CO2 is the driver of warming.

              No there are not.

              He has been involved with climate studies but quit their study based on the non science that he observed.

              No he was not.

              A high school science class awaits your enrollment and attendance.



      • prm2012 February 24, 2016 at 9:46 AM

        I agree with that plot to “fake” the whole thing, for big money.
        Billionaires involved in it. Big Al Gore one of the worst to lie about it.

  16. don lavrich February 23, 2016 at 6:46 PM

    this guy is nothing but a fool.the Almighty has it all under control, just as He had from the beginning. there is nothing man can do to change it. if he thinks so he is delusional!

  17. Will Haas February 23, 2016 at 7:32 PM

    The climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans and our military does not have the power to change it. There is no way that they can in any way intimidate the sun and the oceans to alter on going climate change.

    • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 11:34 AM

      The sun’s decline in output is making the planet warm?




      • Will Haas February 24, 2016 at 4:31 PM

        One has to include the thermal capacitance of the oceans.

        • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 4:32 PM

          So the sun’s decline in output is heating the oceans too?




          • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 5:04 AM

            It is a matter of the effect of heat energy that has already been absorbed by the oceans.

            • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 8:25 AM

              So the heat in them oshin make more heat?!?



              • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM

                No. A thermal capacitor causes a warming cycle to be not as warm as it would be otherwise. It causes the peak output to be delayed. It acts as a low pass filter and hence has the transient response of a low pass filter.

                • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 2:55 PM

                  Sure, sure. So where is the heat stored while it waits for a signal from Remulon to ramp up its output?



                  • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 3:07 PM

                    So apparently you do not understand how capacitors operate or how low pass filters operate either.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 3:36 PM

                      I’m asking you where them thar heet is stored in oshin. In someone’s garage? In batteries?



                    • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 4:46 PM

                      In the water.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 4:51 PM

                      Excellent. So the steady increase in heat capacity – an increase doesn’t match the sun’s output – lets us know it isn’t them suns warmin the earf.




                    • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 5:12 PM

                      The heat capacity of the oceans is a function of the heat capacity of water and the amount of water in the oceans. It is also enhanced by the solid earth that it is in contact with. On a percentage basis that does not change much. What does change is the actual heat energy content of the oceans.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 5:20 PM

                      What does change is the actual heat energy content of the oceans.

                      As measured in J, yes yes. And we know the heat content of the oceans is rising at a rate that does not match solar output, as solar output is declining.

                      So it is not the sun that is warming the earth, thanks!



                    • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 7:10 PM

                      No, it is the sun that is warming the Earth. Without the sun we would all freeze. Models have been generated that show that global temperature is very strongly correlated with an integral of total solar activity and ocean related cycles.. The total solar output has to be integrated much as the oceans do. Models that employ CO2 based global warming have been wrong. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 7:13 PM

                      No, it is the sun that is warming the Earth.

                      No. The sun’s irradiance has decreased. The earth’s temperature has increased.

                      The increase in them temperchers isn’t cuz sun.




                    • . . February 25, 2016 at 7:17 PM

                      But, back in ’72 didn’t you weirdos tell us we were going to have an ice age by now? LOL

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 7:50 PM

                      You were duped (willingly?).



                    • . . February 25, 2016 at 7:57 PM

                      That’s what I’ve been saying. We were all lied to just like they’re lying today. You finally got it (and it only took several hours to penetrate your skull).



                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 8:13 PM

                      You’re desperate. And not good at this.



                    • . . February 25, 2016 at 8:27 PM

                      You wish.
                      Whatever you can say in your feeble attempt to get away from me., right? LOL

                      If you ask me real nice I might leave you alone.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 8:36 PM

                      The horror.



                    • . . February 25, 2016 at 8:40 PM

                      Makes no sense. Like everything else you’ve said today. What wasn’t a lie, that is.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 8:51 PM

                      I made an eagle shadow puppet with your projection.



                    • . . February 25, 2016 at 9:11 PM

                      I bet you can finger paint too.


                    • Will Haas February 25, 2016 at 9:26 PM

                      I already told you that you have to include the effects of the oceans which apparently you do not understand.

      • Duke Silver February 24, 2016 at 5:44 PM

        USCRN addresses this issue quite well. I suggest you read up on it. If you believe in good data, you’ll call for the immediate expulsion of other recording systems here in the US and demand the same worldwide.
        Unfortunately, the sun’s decreasing output holds no sway when it comes to grubby little fingers playing havoc with historical (and recent) data.

        • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 6:12 PM

          So the USCRN tells us how the planet is warming at the same time the sun’s output is increasing?




          • Duke Silver February 24, 2016 at 11:03 PM

            Nah, girl. Shows decreasing temps in the USA to the tune of 0.4 degrees C over the last decade. Of course this is just the USA, so any meaningful worldwide conclusions would require worldwide implementation of the same (gold standard) system worldwide. Hey, oddly, it does agree with declining solar insolation data.

            Or, you could stick with the guesswork from haphazard collection of non-standardized, non calibrated equipment, merged in with bilge water temps and then sprinkled with NOAAs magic rainbow dust to make it meet or exceed the desired results.

            Pretty sure I know how you roll on that one.

            • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 11:09 PM

              Thanks, the planet is warming according to all networks and instrumentation. And the sun’s output is decreasing, so not the sun.



              • Duke Silver February 24, 2016 at 11:42 PM

                Like I said, pretty easy to guess how you’d roll on that one. Keep the the crappy networks because they’re so bad you “need” to adjust them.

                • Dano2 February 24, 2016 at 11:52 PM

                  Thanks again, every measurement network on the planet shows warming while sun output decreasing, so its not the sun warming the planet.

                  BTW, aside from the fact 10 years is not climate, the USCRN is very similar to USHCN & in fact running warmer*. So who knows what it is you think you are harrumphing about.



                  * “Blue line is the difference between raw USHCN and the USCRN, the red line is the difference between homogenized USHCN and USCRN. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aca0cd14bcab9341540bff04b1262ff05be92cdd3ebaa54c13a1c6273037c571.jpg

                  • Duke Silver February 25, 2016 at 12:26 AM

                    Nice try girls. USCRN wasn’t available in 2004 as your data shows. Started in 2005 and not fully implemented until 2006.

                    Not sure what you’re comparing here but it fo’ sho’ aint USCRN. Do your warmist comrades fall for this crap?

                    So, your proposition is to use known antiquated equipment instead of known accurate equipment because the new stuff isn’t old enough?

                    And, when that inconveniently accurate USCRN is old enough to use…….. you won’t use it cause it’s too old?

                    That’s a really effective plan if you need to perpetuate a lie.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 12:53 AM

                      Thanks manly man. If you have a problem with the authors’ data, write them. Let us know what they say.

                      And every measurement network on the planet shows warming while sun output decreasing, so its not the sun warming the planet.



                    • Duke Silver February 25, 2016 at 10:06 AM

                      …that’s the difference between a skeptic and an alarmist.

                      Bells and whistles go off in a skeptics head when the data presented is outside the period of data collection.

                      An alarmist’s head says “Take it up with the authors.”

                      I see you have no intention of being a skeptic, but…..graphs are not data – they’re someone’s representation of data.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 10:18 AM

                      What did the authors say when you e-mailed them with these concerns? Did they LOLz in your face, so you’re back here now trying to cover it up?



                    • Duke Silver February 25, 2016 at 11:50 AM

                      Why would I converse with authors who have falsified (or at least misrepresented) data? For a skeptic they move immediately to the “don’t count” list.

                      An alarmist will come up with some great excuse for them and continue spouting the party line with disregard for the truth…. swear ever louder that the science is settled.

                      You’re the one who needs to make that call, not me.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 12:08 PM

                      Now you are stating they falsified the data cuz their findings are similar to the network you disparaged?!?!?!?


                      First you lurvs you some paper, now you don’t!

                      I LOLzed! Me loves me some Internet Performance Art! HAHAHAHAHAHAH



                    • Duke Silver February 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM

                      There is no similarity between USCRN and USHCN data, raw or homogenized. They say entirely different things. If your source is saying they match, then…..beware your source.

                      My warning to you was – don’t confuse graphs with data. data is numbers while graphs are lines. Someone has to turn numbers into lines and there is where you find a bias.

                      Might wanna check those axes as well, they’re presented in such a manner as to hide the differences.

                      Or, we could talk specifically in terms of degrees K and then use any damn scale you please because the futility of your worry would be evident.

                      If you want to refer to yourself as scientific then you have to hold your sources feet to the fire. Yours have made things up and you don’t seem the least bit slighted.


                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 2:27 PM

                      Thanks for the Gish gallop. Not only do the two datasets closely match – despite your earlier whinging, but there are older USCRN data than your erroneous assertions USCRN wasn’t available in 2004 as your data shows. Started in 2005 . Someone lied to you and you ate it up.

                      So not only did you deflect from the topic, you deflected with blatant errors. I detect a pattern…



                    • . . February 25, 2016 at 2:49 PM

                      Standard paste of quote-mined links used to dupe GW hysterics!


                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 2:56 PM

                      You can’t refute the paper either, got it.



                    • . . February 25, 2016 at 3:08 PM

                      Never said I could, but you’re the one who wants to hear only one side of the issue while failing to prove me wrong here. Why do hysterical GW scientists want to shut down the discussion? Fear is what I think.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 3:35 PM

                      you’re the one who wants to hear only one side of the issue.


                      I only want to hear the science side of them thar ishyou.



                    • . . February 25, 2016 at 3:46 PM

                      You only want to hear the side which is supported by your leftist masters because you have no mind of your own. None of you lemmings can debate any opposing viewpoint like adults. None of you. You’re all afraid.
                      Go back to your “Bill Nye da Science Guy” web site. Maybe you’ll get a lollipop.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 3:52 PM

                      You have no science to support your beliefs or validate your self-identity, so are jealous of everyone else and whine and stomp your little foots in frustration.

                      Awh! Here’s a hankie. There, there.



                    • . . February 25, 2016 at 4:09 PM

                      Oooo, you GW hysterics get so emotional. Did I chalwenge your widdle weligion?


                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 4:22 PM

                      That’s not hiding the fact you have Zero science to support your beliefs or validate your self-identity.



                    • . . February 25, 2016 at 4:26 PM

                      You have zero science as well. All you have is the work of others, the truth of which you have no idea whatsoever. They have your mind and butt. Just give them your money and get it over with.

                    • Dano2 February 25, 2016 at 4:49 PM

                      That’s not hiding the fact you have Zero science to support your beliefs or validate your self-identity either.



  18. Concerned February 23, 2016 at 8:09 PM

    It amazes me that more people do not see these delusional actions of this President. We know that nearly the entire military system understands the issues and those issues are not those of this president. His behavior is approaching that of an idiot or perhaps mental distress. Do any of the minorities or even the illegal immigrants believe that he is really concerned about jobs or their future?? He is stacking more bad decisions on top of his disasterous administration!

  19. Rich Schmidt February 23, 2016 at 10:58 PM

    This mad man has so miscast the role of the military that we are beginning to look like the dictatorship he promised us in his books.
    The military and civil police may one day be breaking down the doors of citizens who the great one finds “offensive”.
    There is a definite limit to the reach of the Executive branch of the Federal gov; and we are suffering a POTUS that is well over that limit.
    The Senate should recapture the budget process, legislate adherence to it and limit use of military to approved actions.

  20. reagangs February 23, 2016 at 11:29 PM

    Obummers ties to the UN and New World Order are commanding his attention on this.

  21. No-Mo-BO February 23, 2016 at 11:32 PM

    My 15 y.o. bastard cat could be a better president than THAT waste of skin and oxygen…

  22. wally12 February 24, 2016 at 1:11 AM

    Very good article Mr. Driessen. I believe you nailed it. What is sad is that the democrats are similar to lemmings that will follow their uninformed leader over any cliff.

  23. stmichrick February 24, 2016 at 3:31 PM

    This news should be used as a club against democrats in the general election this fall. It is something most people can grasp or relate to in terms of the distraction to the mission of the armed forces.

    I don’t know that Trump has the temerity to take it on….he will need Cruz for that.

  24. Mervyn February 28, 2016 at 10:01 AM

    Barack Obama is insane. He has no business sense. He has never hired anyone. he has never been responsible for the pay-checks of employees. He has never had to run anything and make it successful. This is why, as president, he has no common sense about value for money. To Obama everything is dictated by ‘fighting climate change’.

Comments are closed.